Yet if the negotiating pattern holds — and the breakdown in talks is quickly followed by another last-gasp return to the table — it should not take long to complete the deal.

Tentative agreements are already in place on the following major items:

¶ Luxury-tax rate: Teams will be charged $1.50 per $1 spent beyond a threshold, replacing the previous dollar-for-dollar tax, according to people who have seen the plan.

To further discourage spending, the tax will increase for every $5 million spent beyond the threshold: to $1.75 after $5 million, $2.50 after $10 million and $3.25 after $15 million.

Under this system, the Los Angeles Lakers would have paid $45 million in taxes last season, compared with $20 million under the old formula. (The rates could still change based on other tradeoffs.)

¶ Contract lengths: Players with “Bird” rights will be eligible for five-year deals, while others will be limited to four. The previous C.B.A. allowed for six-year (Bird) and five-year deals. The 1999 C.B.A. allowed for seven-year (Bird) and six-year deals.

¶ Raises: Annual raises will be reduced by several percentage points, possibly as low as 5.5 percent for Bird players and 3.5 percent for non-Bird players. The prior deal allowed raises as high as 10.5 percent (Bird) and 8 percent.

¶ Midlevel exception: It will start at $5 million, a decrease of $800,000. The contract length and annual raises attached to the exception remain under discussion.

¶ Amnesty clause: Each team will be permitted to waive one player, with pay — anytime during the life of the C.B.A. — and have his salary be exempt from the cap and the luxury tax. Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.

¶ Stretch exception: Teams will be permitted to stretch out payments to waived players, spreading out the cap hit, over several seasons. The payment schedule will be set by doubling the years left on the contract and adding one. (Thus a team waiving a player with two years left could pay him over five years.)

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

Nearly all of the new provisions will benefit the owners. In return, the players will gain an easing of trade rules and relaxed regulations on restricted free agents.

So the broad parameters of an agreement are in place. The gap on the revenue split is significant, but manageable. As N.B.A. officials have said many times, both sides know where the deal is — they just have to get there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sp...r=1&ref=sports

Im sorry for all you people who care about threads. But I thought this deserved its own as it is a nice summary on what has been agreed upon instead of looking through that epic 3,000+ post monster of a thread above lol.

Anyway, the owners have already won SO MUCH! Every battle involves an owner victory and they still want more. This is why I side with the players. They are giving back alot already and owners cant take one loss and give them the 52% (which is 5% less than the previous year!- you are still winning!!!).

More-Than-Most

10-30-2011, 12:44 AM

Edit nvm... I have my answer and I am off to run down Broad street naked.

king4day

10-30-2011, 01:02 AM

Nice find. Interesting details.

McPeak92

10-30-2011, 01:09 AM

based off hearing Billy Hunter talk it sounds like players agreed to all of this in hopes to get some leverage in the BRI talks and....well we all know the rest.

ink

10-30-2011, 03:40 AM

A lot of this is pretty weak. Hardly worth the lockout if this is all the owners achieved.

Hopefully this will be implemented:

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

Then breaking the cap will have teeth.

naps

10-30-2011, 04:51 AM

****EN owners!!

Toxeryll

10-30-2011, 05:10 AM

A lot of this is pretty weak. Hardly worth the lockout if this is all the owners achieved.

Hopefully this will be implemented:

Then breaking the cap will have teeth.

i hope this happens

The_Pharouh

10-30-2011, 06:06 AM

Don't think it is such a big victory for the owners
also let's face it,this lockout was all about owners winning and players losing,the players wants to just minimize their loss

I really don't consider Amnesty clause as a winning for the owners,players who are gonne be waived will be paid
shorter contract is also not such huge win,only superstars get 6 years contract(or 5 years for free agents) and many of them actually wants shorter contract to have more freedom
this will only hurt All-Stars who gets Super star contracts like Arenas or Joe Johnson

Luxury-tax rate and raises are the owners biggest victory so far,and again,I would say this are actually a reasonable agreement

airronijordan

10-30-2011, 08:27 AM

the players made enough concessions.......the owners aren't negotiating with an open mind!

nycericanguy

10-30-2011, 09:25 AM

Keep in mind that even Billy Hunter admits the NBA/Owners lost AT LEAST $150m last season and have been losing money for quite some time. According to Stern the losses are much higher than $150m though. So it was a given that the owners would "win".

gwrighter

10-30-2011, 10:03 AM

A lot of this is pretty weak. Hardly worth the lockout if this is all the owners achieved.

Hopefully this will be implemented:

Then breaking the cap will have teeth.

yup.

More punitive tax doesn't really do anything as some owners will still spend irrational amounts of money to win. I hope it doesn't have the opposite effect & deter small market teams from going over the cap while large market teams consistently go into the tax because they can afford to pay 40mil & some in taxes.

PrettyBoyJ

10-30-2011, 10:07 AM

I don't think the players were ever in a position to win.. Players really have the most to lose... I remember the owners sending a message out to the players saying they where going to play hard ball and the players would eventually have to give into their demands.. The players are jus trying to find a way not get screwed to bad..

kntresistheheat

10-30-2011, 10:07 AM

Based on what I read, the owners make that back with the players droping from 57% to 52% That 5% gives them their money back.

gwrighter

10-30-2011, 10:11 AM

^it's about more than money tho. They want to get the players under control.

Jamiecballer

10-30-2011, 10:23 AM

this isn't about who wins guys, it's about making the league viable in the long term. keep it coming.

PhillyFaninLA

10-30-2011, 11:03 AM

I said when this all started the following:

- The owners are at fault for this problem
- The owners miss ran there business and are losing money, you don't give out money like candy and you can't spend more then you have coming in, business 101 and they failed
- The players did nothing wrong and will and need to get completely screwed if you want a league in 10 years
- The league needs to have a hard cap, proper revenue sharing, and policies in place to force smart business practices on the owners (basically spelling out how you can spend the revenue you get)

The last thing I said was the lockout needs to be as long as it needs to be for the above to happen you we are kissing the NBA goodbye in a handful of years. The owners need to win this big and smart and players need to be completely screwed, this is the opposite of how I felt about the NFL lockout

Just a reminder the lockout is not the issue the lockout is a legal necessity to the expiration of the CBA I think some people forget that sometimes and blame the word lockout and not the expiration of the CBA. When they opted out early they had 2 years to negotiate to avoid all this they just don't respect us enough to have done that. They saw 2 years ago the lockout was coming and didn't negotiate then.

blahblahyoutoo

10-30-2011, 12:09 PM

I don't think the players were ever in a position to win.. Players really have the most to lose... I remember the owners sending a message out to the players saying they where going to play hard ball and the players would eventually have to give into their demands.. The players are jus trying to find a way not get screwed to bad..

The players have everything to lose and nothing to lose at the same time.
They're playing fricking basketball as a full time job. They're still getting paid millions to put a ball in a hoop FFS!
As lebron said, us normal folks still have to live our miserable lives while they are still filthy rich.

daleja424

10-30-2011, 12:40 PM

We have known this for a while. Players are the ones that have lot in every facet of the discussion... and the owners still want more.

Literally across the board the players have given up parts of just about everything they had in the past to try to get a deal...but the owners keep pushing and pushing. The more the players give up, the more the owners want.

Sactown

10-30-2011, 12:45 PM

We have known this for a while. Players are the ones that have lot in every facet of the discussion... and the owners still want more.

Literally across the board the players have given up parts of just about everything they had in the past to try to get a deal...but the owners keep pushing and pushing. The more the players give up, the more the owners want.

The players did the exact same thing years ago.. There was a time where MJ was paid under 5 million a year.. that period was a 12 year span... the players raped the owners at one time

Dade County

10-30-2011, 01:37 PM

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

The owners should not budge on letting teams that are over the tax, being able to sign midlevel exceptions.

I mean how is that fair ( YOU ARE OVER THE CAP!!! ).

When I hear fisher saying we wont our players to be able to play for all 30 teams... even if those teams are in the tax, I think LAKERS. It make no sense at all to me.

And the sign & trade thing ( They are trying to stop super teams right their). So a player would have to just sign out right with the team, and can't make their full earning potential ( I see nothing wrong with this ).

No mater what the owners should hold out on this topic ( everything else is just utter stupidity ).

ink

10-30-2011, 01:41 PM

We have known this for a while. Players are the ones that have lot in every facet of the discussion... and the owners still want more.

Literally across the board the players have given up parts of just about everything they had in the past to try to get a deal...but the owners keep pushing and pushing. The more the players give up, the more the owners want.

The changes are actually pretty minor. They are adjustments to an old, flawed CBA, not substantive change. The old CBA was riddled with loopholes. All they've done is put patches on some of the loopholes. They badly need to get away from this patchwork approach and revitalize the system.

My hope is that the players will continue not to "get it" about these negotiations and continue to fight over BRI. That will stalemate progress and then both sides will scrap the "progress" they've made renegotiating the old CBA. Then they will wait a few weeks, maybe months, at which point the players will be surprised to see that systemic change is once again the centre of talks. This is the way it happened with the NHL and it has revitalized the actual game. The "product" as everyone likes to say, improved 100%. But it took a complete collapse of negotiations, many months lost, and a complete change in approach for all that positive change to be undertaken. Interestingly, the atmosphere after the lockout was FAR MORE COLLABORATIVE than it had been for decades.

Dade County

10-30-2011, 01:45 PM

The changes are actually pretty minor. They are adjustments to an old, flawed CBA, not substantive change. The old CBA was riddled with loopholes. All they've done is put patches on some of the loopholes. They badly need to get away from this patchwork approach and revitalize the system.

Agreed.

But I think the small market owners are going to feel some heat from the Big market owners soon.

ink

10-30-2011, 01:47 PM

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

The owners should not budge on letting teams that are over the tax, being able to sign midlevel exceptions.

I mean how is that fair ( YOU ARE OVER THE CAP!!! ).

When I hear fisher saying we wont our players to be able to play for all 30 teams... even if those teams are in the tax, I think LAKERS. It make no sense at all to me.

And the sign & trade thing ( They are trying to stop super teams right their). So a player would have to just sign out right with the team, and can't make their full earning potential ( I see nothing wrong with this ).

No mater what the owners should hold out on this topic ( everything else is just utter stupidity ).

I hope they win this point because it's crucial to the change the league needs.

Chronz

10-30-2011, 02:01 PM

What is the point of a MLE if teams over the cap can't use it?

kjoke

10-30-2011, 02:17 PM

The changes are actually pretty minor. They are adjustments to an old, flawed CBA, not substantive change. The old CBA was riddled with loopholes. All they've done is put patches on some of the loopholes. They badly need to get away from this patchwork approach and revitalize the system.

My hope is that the players will continue not to "get it" about these negotiations and continue to fight over BRI. That will stalemate progress and then both sides will scrap the "progress" they've made renegotiating the old CBA. Then they will wait a few weeks, maybe months, at which point the players will be surprised to see that systemic change is once again the centre of talks. This is the way it happened with the NHL and it has revitalized the actual game. The "product" as everyone likes to say, improved 100%. But it took a complete collapse of negotiations, many months lost, and a complete change in approach for all that positive change to be undertaken. Interestingly, the atmosphere after the lockout was FAR MORE COLLABORATIVE than it had been for decades.

That lockout completely ruined the NHL. Its time you stop thinking about what you like and start thinking is best for the league.

JasonJohnHorn

10-30-2011, 02:22 PM

All those items, plus a 5% swing in BRI would be a home run for the owners, and that is a deal the players are willing to do. What more do the owners what? That 5% swing is nearly 10% of the players anual salary. That's like being told the guy that own the factory you worked at, that agreed to pay you 20$ an hour, now wants you to take 17$, and when you offer to go to 18$, he laughs in your face.

Think about it like this, players like Garnett, Bryant and Lewis will each be giving up over 2 million dollars themselves! While many all-starts will be taking pay-cuts ranging from 1 million, to 1.7 million. These guys are willing to give up hundrends of millions of dollars! And the owners just scoff and continue the lock out. WTF?

Thanks for sharing bro.

JasonJohnHorn

10-30-2011, 02:26 PM

What is the point of a MLE if teams over the cap can't use it?

What I got from it was that teams who are over the luxury tax can't use it, but teams who are over the cap can. I don't think you pay luxury tax for every dollar over the cap, I think it kicks in a 5 or 10 million over or something like that. So people who had to go slightly over the cap can still add a guy for the MLE, but a team who already signed a guy with the MLE last season and was already over the cap, and then signed their own free agent, putting them WAY over the cap, couldn't use the MLE again the next season.

Does that make sense?

Lord Leoshes

10-30-2011, 04:35 PM

A lot of this is pretty weak. Hardly worth the lockout if this is all the owners achieved.

Hopefully this will be implemented:

Then breaking the cap will have teeth.

Why should attractive cities suffer, while crap hole cities get special treatment?

If players dont want to sign with a team with bad management, in a crappy city, then why should the good franchise suffer.

Cut the league in half, varsity, & junior varsity. :catfight:

Evolution23

10-30-2011, 10:09 PM

A lot of this is pretty weak. Hardly worth the lockout if this is all the owners achieved.

Hopefully this will be implemented:

Then breaking the cap will have teeth.

lol is that u Dan Gilbert?

ink

10-30-2011, 10:19 PM

yup.

More punitive tax doesn't really do anything as some owners will still spend irrational amounts of money to win. I hope it doesn't have the opposite effect & deter small market teams from going over the cap while large market teams consistently go into the tax because they can afford to pay 40mil & some in taxes.

I think that's exactly what will happen unfortunately. The ultra rich teams will happily go deep into luxury tax territory and pay the price. I would rather see a very long lockout than this kind of half-assed compromise.

ink

10-30-2011, 10:19 PM

lol is that u Dan Gilbert?

:facepalm:

ink

10-30-2011, 10:21 PM

That lockout completely ruined the NHL. Its time you stop thinking about what you like and start thinking is best for the league.

That would be a big surprise to the NHL fans who have seen radical improvement of the league. The competitive balance is much better, and the sport itself is much stronger.

I'm sure there are lots of US fans whose team is not doing well in markets the teams don't belong in though. That is not going to be fixed by any CBA. Hockey just doesn't belong in cultures that have never seen ice. Brutally low attendance only confirms the fact that the NHL's southern expansion dream is a complete fail, but again, that has nothing to do with the lockout or the CBA.

beasted86

10-30-2011, 10:44 PM

That would be a big surprise to the NHL fans who have seen radical improvement of the league. The competitive balance is much better, and the sport itself is much stronger.

I'm sure there are lots of US fans whose team is not doing well in markets the teams don't belong in though. That is not going to be fixed by any CBA. Hockey just doesn't belong in cultures that have never seen ice. Brutally low attendance only confirms the fact that the NHL's southern expansion dream is a complete fail, but again, that has nothing to do with the lockout or the CBA.

In the NHL they pay players 57% of revenue. So why don't we just stop comparing leagues now.

People want to compare the NFL but they have signing bonuses there. People want to compare NHL but they get 57%. Nobody wants to compare MLB although they have great parity and still pay above 51% with no cap. And I think we've already made it clear that a 5 year sample really means nothing because I showed you the comparison in parity to the NBA over 5 years.

kjoke

10-30-2011, 10:45 PM

In the NHL they pay players 57% of revenue. So why don't we just stop comparing leagues now.

People want to compare the NFL but they have signing bonuses there. People want to compare NHL but they get 57%. Nobody wants to compare MLB although they have great parity and still pay above 51% with no cap. And I think we've already made it clear that a 5 year sample really means nothing.

I completely agree. I feel for these players, they are getting abused left and right.

Twinsfan24

10-30-2011, 10:53 PM

A lot of this is pretty weak. Hardly worth the lockout if this is all the owners achieved.

Hopefully this will be implemented:

Then breaking the cap will have teeth.

This is the way it should be! The Nfl has similar rules and they are getting along just fine. The NBA system is broken and now they are going to get it right and I'm ok with that.

Tanakid777

10-30-2011, 11:14 PM

wrong thread lol

ink

10-30-2011, 11:22 PM

In the NHL they pay players 57% of revenue. So why don't we just stop comparing leagues now.

They also have a hard cap which is what the NBA owners wanted to achieve. The 57% is a tradeoff for the hard cap. It was also a huge drop from the previous HRI of something like 70%.

The point remains that the NBA owners see the successful implementation and team management of the NHL since their lockout and want to try to achieve something similar. The ties are well known too: the NHL commissioner used to be David Stern's right hand man in the NBA.

beasted86

10-30-2011, 11:50 PM

They also have a hard cap which is what the NBA owners wanted to achieve. The 57% is a tradeoff for the hard cap. It was also a huge drop from the previous HRI of something like 70%.

The point remains that the NBA owners see the successful implementation and team management of the NHL since their lockout and want to try to achieve something similar. The ties are well known too: the NHL commissioner used to be David Stern's right hand man in the NBA.

Not something similar at all.

The NHL has a $64.3M hard cap and give players 57% in a $3 billion dollar business. In the NBA's $4.3 billion dollar business, the owners 2nd official proposal was $62M flex (hard) cap and a player share of 46%.

So were they just posturing or uh... :confused:

ink

10-31-2011, 12:01 AM

Not something similar at all.

The NHL has a $64.3M hard cap and give players 57% in a $3 billion dollar business. In the NBA's $4.3 billion dollar business, the owners 2nd official proposal was $62M flex (hard) cap and a player share of 46%.

So were they just posturing or uh... :confused:

The actual negotiations are obviously going to be different, the numbers will obviously be different, but the concept of an effective cap system is what is similar. And it has paid off hugely for the actual game, as it would in basketball. You're too caught up in the numbers to think about the obvious parallels, parallels the owners of both leagues have alluded to.

beasted86

10-31-2011, 12:25 AM

The actual negotiations are obviously going to be different, the numbers will obviously be different, but the concept of an effective cap system is what is similar. And it has paid off hugely for the actual game, as it would in basketball. You're too caught up in the numbers to think about the obvious parallels, parallels the owners of both leagues have alluded to.

Well let's look at the parallels... you think the system from the lowest grossing team sports league is the most successful. Not only lowest grossing, but least revenue generating per player...

What do I know... NHL is still last in ratings and hasn't gained any ground on the next highest competitor, the NBA..... which is coming off of a season with record TV ratings, and all around gained popularity. This thing doesn't need major system changes if the NBA is gaining popularity. What they need is to alter the economics of how the league works to help the struggling teams financially.

ink

10-31-2011, 12:34 AM

Well let's look at the parallels... you think the system from the lowest grossing team sports league is the most successful. Not only lowest grossing, but least revenue generating per player...

What do I know... NHL is still last in ratings and hasn't gained any ground on the next highest competitor, the NBA..... which is coming off of a season with record TV ratings, and all around gained popularity. This thing doesn't need major system changes if the NBA is gaining popularity. What they need is to alter the economics of how the league works to help the struggling teams financially.

:facepalm: The popularity argument is weak in comparing leagues. These are obvious things man. No one said the measure of success of a CBA is the growth against other leagues. That post was a complete non-sequitur. The health of a league is measured against itself.

The management of the NBA teams sees obvious advantages from other leagues to having a more effective cap system. They understand that the concept will transfer, NOT the specific league numbers.

beasted86

10-31-2011, 12:36 AM

:facepalm: The popularity argument is weak in comparing leagues. These are obvious things man. No one said the measure of success of a CBA is the growth against other leagues. That post was a complete non-sequitur. The health of a league is measured against itself.

Okay, so measuring the NBA against itself, they better keep heading in the direction of superteams unrestricted free agency, and a non-punative tax... because last season they gained ground with all of those things in place.

ink

10-31-2011, 12:39 AM

Okay, so measuring the NBA against itself, they better keep heading in the direction of superteams unrestricted free agency, and a non-punative tax... because last season they gained ground with all of those things in place.

Not according to the owners of the franchises. We've now come full circle so we're now at the end of the circular argument. You like the status quo because it allowed the Heat to advance radically last year. That has given you the illusion of popularity.

Agree to disagree since repeating the circle is just a further waste of time.

I'm hoping for a substantial deal and I will be very happy to wait out a year to see it achieved. It has improved the GAME elsewhere. I hope the NBA situation works out as proactively.

beasted86

10-31-2011, 12:43 AM

Not according to the owners of the franchises. We've now come full circle so we're now at the end of the circular argument.

Agree to disagree since repeating the circle is just a further waste of time.

I'm hoping for a substantial deal and I will be very happy to wait out a year to see it achieved. It has improved the GAME elsewhere. I hope the NBA situation works out as proactively.

Yeah... let's not continue this circle. The NBA just had a record year in ratings under it's system, and the NHL had a record year with it's system.... but your logic somehow says the NHL system would be better for the NBA with no proof that the NBA's popularity is lower than it could be.

Yeah... let's not continue this circle. The NBA just had a record year in ratings under it's system, and the NHL had a record year with it's system.... but your logic somehow says the NHL system would be better for the NBA with no proof that the NBA's popularity is lower than it could be.

JB debunked the ratings point in another thread. He was talking about the most important part of the season, the finals, which were not especially high. They just barely made it over a 10 share, which is significantly lower than the NBA was in Jordan's last championship year (18.7). In fact from 1982-1998 the ratings never dropped below a 12 share. It's just in the lame *** 2000s that the league's ratings have been awful, often under 10. Says a lot about the effectiveness of the past CBA huh?? lol. Maybe if the NBA was a more competitive league across the board we'd see some improvement. ;)

And btw, owners' say trumps just about everything since it's their league. If they feel there's a reason for a lockout, and there's no CBA in place, they can do what they like. Anything will be better than watching the players continue to dictate the structure of teams in the league.

beasted86

10-31-2011, 01:03 AM

JB debunked the ratings point in another thread. He was talking about the most important part of the season, the finals, which were not especially high. They just barely made it over a 10 share, which is significantly lower than the NBA was in Jordan's last championship year (18.7). In fact from 1982-1998 the ratings never dropped below a 12 share. It's just in the lame *** 2000s that the league's ratings have been awful, often under 10. Says a lot about the effectiveness of the past CBA huh?? lol.

I'm not going to sit here and aimlessly speculate... but a noted change happened since ABC took over NBA coverage around 2002, just ask any fan.

ABC televises 14 games a year when NBC used to have a yearly average of 33.

As a whole the league has become more cable oriented over the past 10 years.